5 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(06/20/19 9:30pm)
by Sydney Norman
Rocketman, the recent biopic about the life and struggles of Elton John, is a film filled with sex, drugs, and rock ’n’ roll, but it also contained depth and so many diamonds. Between its portrayal of Elton’s struggle with alcoholism and how he escaped an abusive relationship, Rocketman paints the life of Elton John as both colorful and inspiring.
The film is not entirely linear and begins near the chronological end, which typically is an overdone scenario in movies, but, in this instance, it was done remarkably well because there was a purpose. Starting the movie near the end allowed us to see things from Elton John’s perspective. As Elton is talking about his life in group therapy, his life story is told in the form of flashbacks that reveal how he learned to play piano and the poor relationship he had with his father. These flashbacks are coordinated with Elton’s songs so that the lyrics make sense with the scene, which makes the film all the more magical.
Although the trailers of the film made it seem like a run-of-the-mill biopic, it leaned much harder towards a movie musical. At first, this is mildly off-putting, especially if you walk in thinking you’re going to be watching a biopic similar to 2018’s Bohemian Rhapsody, but it worked very well. This type of biopic was risky because it may not appeal to all documentarian types of filmgoers, but it would appeal to all fans of Elton John. Upon further thought, the film is more about portraying life through the eyes of Elton John himself. The color, the dancing, and the music all makes sense when the protagonist is remembered.
Going in-depth into the trauma an abusive relationship can have on someone, specifically showing that relationship from the perspective of a male, made this movie all the more relevant. Seeing as men are less likely to report abuse, showing a relationship of a famous man who overcame the cycle is inspirational.
Recreating the many bedazzled, exceptionally colorful, and elaborate costumes of Elton John was surely a monstrous task, but it was done amazingly well. From sunglasses to shoes to feather headpieces, every costume piece in Rocketman was one for the books, and although these costumes weren’t original designs, the likeness to Elton John’s fashion was astounding.
Taron Egerton, the actor who played Elton John, did the job so well it seems as though you’re watching video footage of Elton’s actual life. Not only could he rock the funky glasses and costumes as well as the musician, but he genuinely embodied a young Elton John. Beyond the general demeanor and voice, there is something special about the way and the energy with which Egerton portrayed Elton John. It speaks volumes about his level of talent.
Impressively enough, Rocketman actually works on multiple levels: it can be watched as a musical without any prior knowledge of Elton John and still makes sense and is enjoyable. The way music is incorporated into big moments in Elton’s life allows the film to be a solid stand-alone feature, which only adds to the remarkability of the film.
(04/24/19 1:47am)
From book to film to remade film, Pet Sematary has had an extensive life. Extensive, though, does not always mean good. The 2019 adaptation of Pet Sematary had some high points and fresh ideas, but for the most part, it was purely jump scares and blood spatter.
(04/20/19 4:00pm)
by Sydney Norman
From book to film to remade film, Pet Sematary has had an extensive life. Extensive, though, does not always mean good. The 2019 adaptation of Pet Sematary had some high points and fresh ideas, but for the most part, it was purely jump scares and blood spatter.
Pet Sematary is about a family of four moving to a small town in order to get a fresh start on life, Louis Creed (the father) repeats many times that they moved so he would have more time to spend with his family, although little background is given. Rachel, Louis, and their children, Ellie and Gage, moved out to the country with their cat, Church. The Creed family buy a large plot of land containing a mysterious area that local children frequently visit known as the “Pet Sematary.” Their friendly neighbor, Jud Crandall, appears there and explains the history and meaning behind the cemetery and the other quirks of the town.
The movie begins with a very corny scene. There is a bloody handprint on the open car door, following a trail of blood and footprints to the front door of the Creed home while stereotypical ominous music plays in the background. Telling a story but beginning at the end and circling back to how the end came to be was an original idea at one point, but at this point, it has been overdone, over-seen, and is just plain boring. The next scene is of the family arriving in the new town and climbing out of the car only to have a semi driving at a recklessly high-speed on the road in front of their home. This was obvious foreshadowing that was actually done semi-tastefully, aside from it being the first of many jump-scares.
It's safe to say that the beginning of the film did not have me convinced that I would enjoy the rest, and I was right.
In the original film rendition of Pet Sematary, Gage, the son of the Creed family, is hit by a semi going far too fast on a small-town back road. In the 2019 version, Gage is saved from the truck and Ellie, the 9-year-old daughter is hit and killed. This did make for an interesting change because while the death of a child in any circumstance is horrifying, the thought of a zombified 9-year-old is scarier than a zombified toddler. At 9, Ellie could hold a conversation, had more motor skills, and had more of an opportunity to be scary than a toddler did.
As far as the actual horror aspect of the film goes, it was all jump scares. It felt like every few minutes, something had the potential to be genuinely scary, but that tension is ruined by a jump scare. Jump scares are the cheapest and most overused kind of scare, and they are truly are just a way to pass a movie off as horror. An occasional jump scare is a totally fine way to give thrills and chills in a film, as long as you mix them in with different horror aspects like suspense, music, blood, and death. While there is plenty of blood and death in the film, they rarely happen without jump scares, so they don’t even have a chance to scare you because the cheesiness of the jump scare makes the scenes nearly laughable.
Many aspects of the film remained the same, which was enjoyable and nostalgic, especially as someone who first saw Pet Sematary as a child. While the original 1989 film was cheesy in the way that most 80s horror films were, this film is cheesy in the worst of ways. When a movie is remade, the expectation is that the film itself will improve with better visuals and content, like the remake of the IT movie. Now, both Stephen King classics are remade, one a huge success and the other… not so much. IT brought new ideas, thoughts, and terrors to the franchise, while the new Pet Sematary brought sadness and cheap scares.
The general plot felt muddled in the sense that everyone (aside from the children) has a deep backstory that is almost never spoken of or explained. Jud and his wife, Nora, seem to have a history with the rotten ground behind the cemetery that isn’t ever unraveled. We never find out the horrors that Louis saw as a doctor that led him to make the decision to move away, and while the story of Rachel and her sick sister is told, it is never fully explained. This is prevalent because when the rotten ground brings people back, it brings them back as a demonic form in their bodies, and the demons tend to have some sort of relationship to the backstory of the character they’re interacting with. Like the rest of the movie, it all just feels rushed and slapped together by an act of half-hearted necromancy.
(02/01/19 9:56pm)
As a true crime aficionado and fangirl, the idea that a Ted Bundy documentary would be coming to Netflix excited me to no end. I knew a lot about Bundy from previous readings and podcasts, but these taped recordings were an exclusive that I’d never even heard of before. Conversations with a Killer is a documentary focusing on the life of Ted Bundy, partially told by Bundy himself, which begins with the story of Bundy requesting to speak with a journalist in order to tell his side of the story and clear his name.
(01/31/19 9:44pm)
by Sydney Norman
As a true crime aficionado and fangirl, the idea that a Ted Bundy documentary would be coming to Netflix excited me to no end. I knew a lot about Bundy from previous readings and podcasts, but these taped recordings were an exclusive that I’d never even heard of before. Conversations with a Killer is a documentary focusing on the life of Ted Bundy, partially told by Bundy himself, which begins with the story of Bundy requesting to speak with a journalist in order to tell his side of the story and clear his name.
The documentary features tapes of Ted Bundy talking about his childhood — he takes his time before he gets into the murders. The reporter who was responsible for taping the interviews, Stephen Michaud, had to come up with a way to get Bundy, a textbook narcissist, to discuss the murders, which is the real beef of the interviews. So Michaud decided to ask him what he thinks happened. This approach gave Bundy a level of power and let him think that Michaud wanted his genius point of view, which got him talking. Bundy tells the stories of the murders from the point of view of the killer. This information is mentioned in the documentary but barely given airtime.
At one point, an interview with Bundy’s kidnapping survivor really draws you in. Carol Daronch tells the story of being kidnapped by Bundy, and then the story of how she escaped. Bundy is said to have killed another woman, Debra Jean Kent, very shortly after Daronch escaped, which makes her story all the more thrilling. This was an amazing directorial choice, seeing a living victim who can tell a story rather than just police-assumed retellings creates a connection between viewers and the story. The emotion in the voice of someone who lived through such an event leaves a much larger impact than just hearing the story from a third party.
Similarly, Bundy’s mother, Louise, is shown pleading for her son’s life. She states that she, nor the rest of Bundy’s family and friends, believe that he is possible of such heinous crimes. She does interviews with the press asking that people reconsider their thoughts and insisting that her son is innocent. The pain in her eyes speaks a million words. Much like an interview with a Bundy survivor, this adds depth to the documentary because of the raw emotion, she thinks her son, her baby, is going to prison for doing nothing. It’s almost painful to watch.
Despite a number of interesting interviews, this documentary lacked in many areas for being a four-hour endeavor. It never discusses Bundy’s reasoning for picking his victims, like their generally similar characteristics. The documentary also focuses very little on the actual tapes of Bundy talking and instead relies on interviews with journalists, police officers, and people that knew Bundy. This makes the title misleading. I went in assuming that there would be mostly recordings of Bundy telling the stories of the murders. This was especially disappointing because there are approximately 100 hours of recordings of Bundy telling his stories. Out of hundreds of hours of recordings, we probably heard, at maximum, an hour of Bundy talking. Calling a documentary “The Ted Bundy Tapes” implies far more interviews with Bundy and far fewer interviews with other people. These factors do help make the story better by providing input and points of view from different sources, but they don’t add to the validity of the title.
This documentary did one thing well though; it showed Ted Bundy as both a monster and a (quite literal) lady killer. Although Bundy was on trial for the rapes and murders of college-aged women, many women in that age group showed up to his trial every day and stared at him in awe. As the prosecution and defense are going over the details of the case, women can be seen in the background gazing at Bundy. There are even interviews where women say that he’s so charming, and they don’t believe he has the eyes of a killer. He could convince and connive his way out of any situation, or so he thought.
Bundy thought he was the smartest man on Earth, and liked to pretend he truly was. Most murderers could be categorized as unattractive, scary, social recluses, but Bundy was none of these things. It is mentioned briefly in the documentary that this is what made the case so unique. By showing both sides of Bundy, monster and attractive man, we are shown more perspective of the women of the 1970s, and why they were so enticed by Bundy. His charm and general good looks made him the perfect candidate to be a killer. He assumed because he was so personable, that he could get away with murder. This made the documentary flourish because you were able to see exactly what a charming smile and a college degree can (almost) get away with.
The documentary also highlights the fact that this was one of the very first cases to be nearly entirely televised, making it a worldwide sensation. Every person could turn on the TV and see the details of the Bundy case come to life day after day. This made the making of the documentary easier, as there was so no shortage of footage to include.
The documentary ends in 1986, with Bundy up on Death Row to be killed within the next week. Many lawyers stood up for Bundy, saying that he shouldn’t be electrocuted because of his mental state. This entire section of the documentary seems muddled and boring. Usually, you can rely on a strong conclusion to make a movie or documentary seem better than it was, but it just ends with interviews of cops from Florida discussing their hatred for Bundy. After the enthralling footage that was shown in the documentary, it just felt underwhelming to end on something that is nowhere near as interesting as anything else in the entire show.